Roboflow

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Muse Wonder

Compare GPT-5.6 Sol and Muse Wonder side-by-side.

Compare GPT-5.6 Sol vs Muse Wonder live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.

Models in this comparison

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Muse Wonder on Vision Evals

Muse Wonder scores higher on 4 of the five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Muse Wonder leads 85.2% to 66.0%.

Overall, GPT-5.6 Sol averages 72.4% (#17 of 62) against 78.8% (#8 of 62) for Muse Wonder.

GPT-5.6 Sol is cheaper ($0.0096 vs $0.034 per sample), while Muse Wonder is faster (11.7s vs 12.2s per sample).

GPT-5.6 SolMuse Wonder

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Muse Wonder Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 13, 2026

PropertyGPT-5.6 SolMuse Wonder
OrganizationOpenAIMeta
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Oct 2026
Context Window1.5M1.0M
ParametersUnknownundisclosed
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00$4.00
Output $/1M$10.00$20.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoSupported
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoSupported
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoSupported
OCRDemoSupported
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoSupported
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
72.4%
78.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.0096$0.034
Avg speed / sample12.16s11.68s
By task
Object Detection (low)
68.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.9 to 69.3
$0.015
65.1%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.5 to 66.0
$0.044
Object Detection (high)
68.4%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.7 to 69.3
$0.035
66.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.5
$0.061
Counting (low)
74.3%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 75.7
$0.0049
76.6%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 78.4
$0.024
Counting (high)
76.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.3 to 78.4
$0.0078
79.7%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1
$0.043
Identification (low)
89.6%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 93.8
$0.0028
92.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.014
Identification (high)
92.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.0030
90.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6
$0.023
OCR (low)
63.6%
$0.0095
74.3%
$0.034
by category
Single value
43.5%
Transcription
91.7%
Structured JSON
82.0%
Text localization
52.2%
Single value
67.4%
Transcription
93.2%
Structured JSON
90.5%
Text localization
40.1%
OCR (high)
65.3%
$0.024
76.0%
$0.059
by category
Single value
46.1%
Transcription
92.3%
Structured JSON
83.9%
Text localization
51.6%
Single value
70.9%
Transcription
88.3%
Structured JSON
90.3%
Text localization
45.9%
Reasoning (low)
66.0%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.6 to 68.9
$0.0043
85.2%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.8 to 85.4
$0.024
Reasoning (high)
71.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.2 to 72.8
$0.0061
83.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 84.1
$0.047

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Muse Wonder: Overview

GPT-5.6 Sol

GPT-5.6 Sol is the flagship model in OpenAI's GPT-5.6 family, which also includes Terra (a balanced everyday-work tier) and Luna (a fast, cost-efficient tier). Sol is designed for demanding reasoning, long-horizon agentic workflows, software engineering, computer use, scientific research, and cybersecurity tasks. It introduces two new capability modes: a "max" reasoning effort setting that allocates additional compute time for difficult problems, and an "ultra" mode that coordinates multiple subagents in parallel to accelerate complex, multi-step work. The model supports native multimodal input, allowing it to process screenshots, diagrams, charts, documents, and photographs alongside text. A reported context window of approximately 1.5 million tokens enables processing of large codebases, lengthy research documents, and extended agentic sessions.

GPT-5.6 Sol was announced on June 26, 2026, initially in a limited preview for trusted partners, and reached general availability on July 9, 2026. On the Agents' Last Exam benchmark, which evaluates long-running professional workflows across 55 fields, Sol scores 53.6. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, which tests command-line agentic coding workflows, Sol Ultra achieves 91.9%. The model also demonstrates gains in life sciences evaluations, including long-horizon genomics and quantitative biology analyses. OpenAI paired the release with its most extensive safety evaluation to date, combining human red teaming with large-scale automated testing, and classified Sol as High capability in both cybersecurity and biological risk under its Preparedness Framework, though it does not cross the Critical threshold in either category.

Muse Wonder

Muse Wonder is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Meta, released on October 12, 2026 as the first step past the Muse Spark line on Meta's scaling ladder. It launched together with Muse Wonder Full, a larger configuration that is available only through Muse Code subscription plans, while Muse Wonder itself is served through the Meta Model API under the identifier muse-wonder-1.0. The model accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents as input and returns text, with a context window of 1,048,576 tokens and graded reasoning effort settings. Meta trained both models at its Prometheus data center on larger base models than Muse Spark 1.3, and attributes their gains on unfamiliar tasks to post-training that transfers more effectively from a stronger base.

Meta positions Muse Wonder for long-running personal and professional agents: it plans multi-step work, delegates to sub-agents, calls tools in parallel, recovers from errors, and operates browsers and desktop or mobile applications. Two training objectives shape this behaviour. Active Memory carries goals, constraints, and earlier decisions across conversations and retrieves the details relevant to the current step, and Active Focus keeps the model trying alternative approaches when a task gets difficult while asking for clarification before important actions. Visual inputs such as screenshots, charts, and video feed the same reasoning loop, and the model emits bounding box coordinates for grounding queries. Meta's model card lists visual and spatial reasoning, especially 3D tasks, as a known limitation and recommends validating performance for applications that depend on precise spatial understanding.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Wonder performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the five vision tasks and averages 78.8% (#8 of 62) against 72.4% (#17 of 62) for GPT-5.6 Sol. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Muse Wonder leads with 85.2% against 66.0%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

GPT-5.6 Sol is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0096 per sample against $0.034. GPT-5.6 Sol is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $10.00 per 1M output; Muse Wonder is priced at $4.00 per 1M input tokens and $20.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Muse Wonder is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 11.7s per inference against 12.2s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.